During the Gulf War, our troops were often faced with surplus tanks, humvees and weaponry that were made in the good ol' U.S. of A. (and sometimes still bearing the U.S. Army logo). Same thing in Afghanistan (to a lesser extent). This is nothing new.

It doesn't excuse it, but it also needs context as this isn't a black and white issue.

« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 01:45:25 PM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

During the Gulf War, our troops were often faced with surplus tanks, humvees and weaponry that were made in the good ol' U.S. of A. (and sometimes still bearing the U.S. Army logo). Same thing in Afghanistan (to a lesser extent). This is nothing new.

It doesn't excuse it, but it also needs context as this isn't a black and white issue.

I agree hep. But there is so much uncertainty about who the rebels actually are (and good indicators that there are some al queda fighters)...so why do we keep making the same mistakes?

Because not doing anything could be an even bigger mistake. There is rarely a clear cut "right thing to do" in situations like this. If we stay entirely out of it, we get accused of isolationism, if we get involved we're accused of imperialism. Either decision results in complaints both external and internal. Right now the administration is trying to err on the side that will hopefully create a more stable region that at least doesn't actively seek our destruction.

...well...that and doesn't result in an interruption in oil flow.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

Believing we can simply "stop" is being extremely naive when it comes to foreign affairs. Foreign diplomacy and affairs is not based on binary principles. The nuance of dealing with foreign powers is so incredibly different between locales and times alone that just saying "stop" and doing so could (and most likely would) end up doing more harm than good.

History is full of examples that back this up.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

We should provide just enough firepower to the rebels to keep the civil war stalemated until both sides are exhausted enough to negotiate an end to it. When bad guys are fighting bad guys, you want to encourage that.

And according to the CNN story linked a few posts back,

Quote

Noting al-Assad's forces have been helped by Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as Iran, Carney said Syrian rebels need the help of the United States and allied nations to withstand an increased assault.

"The aid is intended to help the opposition resist Assad and eventually prevail," Carney said, adding that any resolution of Syria's civil war will require a political transition.

His comment appeared intended to soften any expectations that the rebels could topple the regime by military means alone.

I am ambivalent. I've said several times that I don't think we should try to influence their civil war...yet at the same time I sympathize with the impulse to make chemical warfare so costly as to be unacceptable -- that is, for the political price to outweigh the battlefield advantage. Bloodying Assad's nose sufficiently to make this point without tipping the military balance to the rebels will be a delicate act. I'm skeptical that air strikes and cruise missiles can supply that kind of finesse.

100k or more people have been killed already in this civil war by conventional means. They are just as dead as the small number (relatively speaking compared to everything else) of people killed by chemical weapons. I don't see why now it is so important to intervene where it wasn't before.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy. They need to do something that REALLY pisses in Russia's oatmeal and point out that is mostly in response to the refusal on their part to reign Syria in as well as something against Syria. russia only understands hardball and unless they blink Syria won't either.

The area of blockades, no fly zones, and more latitude for Israel when it comes to supporting more support/action by them against Lebanon/Syria/Iran. It would have to be well thought out though to avoid derailing Israeli peace talks, despite the fact that there is little chance of success on that front anyway.

100k or more people have been killed already in this civil war by conventional means. They are just as dead as the small number (relatively speaking compared to everything else) of people killed by chemical weapons. I don't see why now it is so important to intervene where it wasn't before.

I agree with this and am surprised by how my position has changed. Whereas my original post was an attempted lambaste at Obama over his inconsistent policies, I'm now just sitting here shaking my head that he is yet another president who is getting the US involved in something completely detrimental to our country.

There is no need for us to be there especially since it's so unclear who the 'good guys' are.

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense.

Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assad’s cause but, rather, was certain to bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party which wants a U.S. war on Syria as the back door to war on Iran.

Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assad’s offer to have U.N. inspectors—already in Damascus investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas—go to the site of the latest incident?

100k or more people have been killed already in this civil war by conventional means. They are just as dead as the small number (relatively speaking compared to everything else) of people killed by chemical weapons. I don't see why now it is so important to intervene where it wasn't before.

Because WMDs were used. It may seem arbitrary to you but the world in general has decided that a death by poison gas is much worse than a death by a bullet or shrapnel. Does it make sense? Who knows, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense.

Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assad’s cause but, rather, was certain to bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party which wants a U.S. war on Syria as the back door to war on Iran.

Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assad’s offer to have U.N. inspectors—already in Damascus investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas—go to the site of the latest incident?

—Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did?

—What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran?

—If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?

—Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States?

—If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene?

Hopefully they're more carefully considered than the last time.

Also, when it comes to war the President holds all the cards. When was the last time Congress declared war again?

Israel has got to be shitting bricks over this. It seems like any military action by the U.S. in that region eventually (rather quickly too) results in reprisals against them.

Not only that but it must be hard to swallow that they face that threat because we are hell bent on helping the Radical Islamic/Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood infested/controlled rebels gain control of Syria. I suspect that will be a much greater long term threat to Israel that al-Assad ever could have been.

There are no white knights in the world of politics. We supported far right dictators and corrupt regimes for decades to keep the leftist groups from gaining power in every country in which we could get a foothold. When it's your guy, you're much more tolerant of his failures and abuses than the other guys'. And that goes for the American political system as much as geopolitics.